Bigger Than Bigfoot

[Guest]

Shore birds survived. So did frogs. In fact, birds are dinosuars. Life did find a way!

Birds are dinosaur contemporaries, but the point holds that life from that era survived.

I'd add to the list: coelecanth, 7-gill shark, snakes, and cycads (off the top of my head).

[Guest]

Birds are dinosaur contemporaries, but the point holds that life from that era survived.

I'd add to the list: coelecanth, 7-gill shark, snakes, and cycads (off the top of my head).

There you go, more life that has found a way. I think it is the general size of of dinos that makes their survival less believable to many, with the typical arguement being "How could something that big survive unnoticed by modern science blah blah blah..."

[Guest wild eyed willy]

The person was walking on a beach or in shallow water and stepped up on one that had been washed into the sands there...simple explanation.

So? It's still clearly copper. It's still clearly manufactured, and still clearly of a purity we can't smelt to in current time, and it was still found in a coal seam.

Those facts remain, whether it was 2 inches or 2 feet long.

did I miss something, where does it tell about the coper axe being found in a coal seam?

[Guest]

The person was walking on a beach or in shallow water and stepped up on one that had been washed into the sands there...simple explanation.

So? It's still clearly copper. It's still clearly manufactured, and still clearly of a purity we can't smelt to in current time, and it was still found in a coal seam.

Those facts remain, whether it was 2 inches or 2 feet long.

Wha? The axe referred to was dug from a Hopewell mound in Ohio, not a coal seam. And where did you find out that it was so pure that we can't smelt that copper today? I'll see if I can find the article and pic on it that I found before...

And somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that an active beach that a human might have walked on would not be the best place to preserve a fossil(or a footprint) due to the water's motion...??? Deep under the water, under great pressure and heavysediments, where a human would not have trod, seems more likely.

Edited August 11, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest]

There you go, more life that has found a way. I think it is the general size of of dinos that makes their survival less believable to many, with the typical arguement being "How could something that big survive unnoticed by modern science blah blah blah..."

The largest ones couldn't. They just flat couldn't. Esp the large sauropods. Often overlooked fact about the eras of the dinosaurs: the atmosphere was at a higher pressure, and a higher partial oxygen content for most of that time.

Current day, the best vacuum pump can only create about 32' worth of vacuum. The large sauropods and some of the large theropods either could not get air from nose to lung (due to the length of the respiratory tract), or couldn't get enough oxygen out of the air to fuel their metabolic needs (due to reduced oxygen concentration).

[Guest LAL]

Birds are dinosaur contemporaries, but the point holds that life from that era survived.

I'd add to the list: coelecanth, 7-gill shark, snakes, and cycads (off the top of my head).

And crocodiles.

"Ask your average paleontologist who is familiar with the phylogeny of vertebrates and they will probably tell you that yes, birds (avians) are dinosaurs. Using proper terminology, birds are avian dinosaurs; other dinosaurs are non-avian dinosaurs, and (strange as it may sound) birds are technically considered reptiles. Overly technical? Just semantics? Perhaps, but still good science. In fact, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of birds being the descendants of a maniraptoran dinosaur, probably something similar (but not identical) to a small dromaeosaur. "

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

[Guest]

did I miss something, where does it tell about the coper axe being found in a coal seam?

That's the only account of an anachronistic copper axe I know of.

Now there are reports of copper axes being found that date earlier than expected. Otzi's copper axe, for example pushes back the beginnings of the Copper Age a bit, and a 7,500 year old copper axe was found in a Romanian coal MINE, suggesting copper technology in the Balkans that long ago.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1435351.php/Copper_Age_began_earlier_than_believed_scientists_say

That's a far different thing than finding one embedded in coal, suggesting that it was part of the coal seam's formation. And it isn't alone:

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

By the way, does anyone know exactly why it's getting harder and harder to find oopart/anachronistic artifact and alternative history pages on the web? I remember there being a lot more just a few years ago, but today you really have to dig into google/yahoo results to find them, even with very specific search terms.

[Guest]

Wha? The axe referred to was dug from a Hopewell mound in Ohio, not a coal seam. And where did you find out that it was so pure that we can't smelt that copper today? I'll see if I can find the article and pic on it that I found before...

Ok, then we aren't talking about the same axe...I for some reason thought we were...my apologies.

And somebody please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that an active beach that a human might have walked on would not be the best place to preserve a fossil(or a footprint) due to the water's motion...??? Deep under the water, under great pressure and heavysediments, where a human would not have trod, seems more likely.

Nope, shores or shallow water (includging riverbeds) are the most likely places to preserve tracks. In the deeper waters, the dinosaurs themselves would not be able to leave footprints.

Read up on such tracks and what the conditions were when they were laid down.

[Incorrigible1]

Good posting, Lal. You've brought me to a greater realization of myself. As a child I was a dinosaur bookworm bent upon becoming a paleontologist. (Didn't.) As an adult, I've long been an avid birder. Birds are closely related to reptiles, their digestive/reproductive parts intermingle. I pack a bird ID book when I travel.

::note: opinion:: It's readily apparent (to me) birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. It's a natural progression (quiz: name that Guess Who song.) PM with the guess/answer.

[Guest LAL]

I'd think of mixed strata or a ceremonial axe being dropped down a fissure before I'd think of one dating to the age of the coal seam. Is there something unusual about a copper axe being found in a mound?

200,000 years was the estimate of geneticists a few years ago more or less confirmed by the redating of Omo I and Omo II to 195,000 years ago. "Old-earth evolution" ? That's a new one on me. Is there a young earth evolution?

[Guest]

Ok, then we aren't talking about the same axe...I for some reason thought we were...my apologies.

Nope, shores or shallow water (includging riverbeds) are the most likely places to preserve tracks. In the deeper waters, the dinosaurs themselves would not be able to leave footprints.

Read up on such tracks and what the conditions were when they were laid down.

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but for ease's sake, I will. From the article on "trace fossils":

"Surface trails on sediment in shallow marine environments stand less chance of fossilization because they are subjected to wave and current action. Conditions in quiet, deep-water environments tend to be more favorable for preserving fine trace structures."

Obviously, we have fossil tracks, and they can happen in shallow environments, e.g. dino tracks. But we are not talking about dino tracks, which are largely preserved on mud flats, we are talking about a trilobite in what is purported to be a human sandal print. One doesn't find trilobites in riverbeds, unless they were previously (i.e. before the river cut them)under the ocean. Mulder, you argued that a "simple answer" to the issue was that a human, in sandals, walked down a beach and stepped on a trilobite that had washed ashore. I argue that if the trilobite washed ashore recently enough and shallow enough for a person to step on it, it seems likely that the footprint itself would be summarily washed away, as well. I am not dismissing fossil tracks, I just find fault with your "simple answer." IMO,the simple answer is that what appears to be a footprint is VERY LIKELY not. I feel like we are arguing for the sake of one-upsmanship, and will not engage further, due to how far off a topic related to BF we have strayed.

Good news is, Mulder, this discussion has already caused (and will continue to cause) me to look into exactly how fossil tracks form, so thank you

[Guest]

By the way, does anyone know exactly why it's getting harder and harder to find oopart/anachronistic artifact and alternative history pages on the web? I remember there being a lot more just a few years ago, but today you really have to dig into google/yahoo results to find them, even with very specific search terms.

Because time travel is now possible. I actually think I posted the link to the time machine patent in this thread.

[Guest wtwest]

I hate quoting Wikipedia, but for ease's sake, I will. From the article on "trace fossils":

"Surface trails on sediment in shallow marine environments stand less chance of fossilization because they are subjected to wave and current action. Conditions in quiet, deep-water environments tend to be more favorable for preserving fine trace structures."

Obviously, we have fossil tracks, and they can happen in shallow environments, e.g. dino tracks. But we are not talking about dino tracks, which are largely preserved on mud flats, we are talking about a trilobite in what is purported to be a human sandal print. One doesn't find trilobites in riverbeds, unless they were previously (i.e. before the river cut them)under the ocean. Mulder, you argued that a "simple answer" to the issue was that a human, in sandals, walked down a beach and stepped on a trilobite that had washed ashore. I argue that if the trilobite washed ashore recently enough and shallow enough for a person to step on it, it seems likely that the footprint itself would be summarily washed away, as well. I am not dismissing fossil tracks, I just find fault with your "simple answer." IMO,the simple answer is that what appears to be a footprint is VERY LIKELY not. I feel like we are arguing for the sake of one-upsmanship, and will not engage further, due to how far off a topic related to BF we have strayed.

Good news is, Mulder, this discussion has already caused (and will continue to cause) me to look into exactly how fossil tracks form, so thank you

Great post, notgiganto. Great post.

[Guest LAL]

After reviewing the mister print, It looks like a foot print to me.. created by a basically constructed shoe. their argument for a naturally occuring unexplainable freak of nature, creating the print really doesn't hold water..

Without having the print to examine, I can only surmise it is real.

From Glen Kuban's site (mirrored on TO):

The specimen does contain at least two real trilobites (which are abundant in the outcrops around Antelope Springs), but the supposed sandal print does not stand up to close scrutiny. The overall shape is seen to consist of a spall pattern in a concretion-like slab, similar to many others in the area. There is no evidence that it was ever part of a striding sequence, nor that it was ever on an exposed bedding plane, as real prints would be. The "print" is very shallow and shows no sign of pressure deformation or foot movement at its margin. However, on one side of the print, extending to the side of the supposed toe end is a rim or lip that is typical of similar concretions from the area, but which is incompatible in position and form to be a pressure ridge. Also, of the two halves of rock, the side that has the heel indented shows raised relief at the toe end, and vice versa, whereas in a real print one should show impression or raised relief throughout each half. The supposed "heel" demarcation is actually a crack that runs beyond the boundary of the supposed print. It is best seen on the far left side as one views the print in the photograph herein. The slight relief difference at this point is due to slight movement along the crack line (Conrad, 1981 ; Stokes, 1986).

Similar concretionary shapes and spall patterns are abundant in the Wheeler formation, as are slabs showing concentric oval shapes of varying color, sometimes with stair-step like relief. Several other of these oblong features have also been interpreted as possible human prints (Cook, 1970), but are even less convincing than the Meister specimen (Conrad, 1981). None occur in striding trails or otherwise meet the scientific criteria by which genuine human prints are reliably identified. The geochemical processes such as solution penetrations, spalling, and weathering which form such features in fissile rocks of the Wheeler formation was discussed in considerable detail by Stokes (1986).

Several such "pseudo-prints" from Antelope Springs were sent to me in the early 1980's by creationist biologist Ernest Booth. One showed both an ovoid spall pattern similar to the Meister print, and another a color-distinct ovoid pattern without topographic relief. Booth expressed dismay that fellow creationists had not explained that such superficially print-like features were abundant at the site, and were products of geological phenomena and not real prints (Booth, 1982)."

What's freaky about the Meister "print" ? Such features were common in the area.

[Guest wtwest]

That's a far different thing than finding one embedded in coal, suggesting that it was part of the coal seam's formation. And it isn't alone:

http://www.s8int.com/page8.html

By the way, does anyone know exactly why it's getting harder and harder to find oopart/anachronistic artifact and alternative history pages on the web? I remember there being a lot more just a few years ago, but today you really have to dig into google/yahoo results to find them, even with very specific search terms.

I'm sure a vast a majority of these items have perfectly logical explanations or are hoaxes. You would think that these out of place artifacts would garner much more scientific attention, if they were actually worth studying.

The handprint in the rock looks like it was created out of cement or carved. There is no verified source and thus, no verifiable evidence that this was actually discovered in prehistoric strata.

The petrified wood section is just completely wrong. Head out to Mt. St. Helens and take a look at the wood that was petrified in the 30 years since the eruption.

Also, notice all of these accounts are from 50-100 years ago. That certainly makes them credible.

Nothing to see here folks, unless you are a fan of young earth creationism, that is.